Sanctions as a diplomatic action?

[Tonas1997]

How would you feel about sanctions being made into a diplomatic action, instead of an externally-enforced World Congress resolution? To me, it doesn't make much sense for two pariah civs to be kept from trading with each other just because the WC dictated it. Instead:

• Sanctions are a diplomatic action that can be triggered at any point; it works much like Denouncing, and also lasts 30 turns.
• Sanctioninga civ keeps it from having active trade routes with the sanctioner, and cancels any ongoing deals and agreements.
  • (bonus) sanctioning a civ prevents it from running trade routes through territory you own.
• Sanctioning a civ results in a -50 diplo modifier - for comparison, denouncing is -35.
• Sanctions aren't necessarily mutual, but sanctioned civs are almost certain to retaliate.

To me this feel much more fair, historically accurate and sensible than having the WC fracture economic ties between otherwise aligned civs. I understand that the logic behind nerfing the rule of majority of the WC applies to... well, pretty much every resolution, but I think this one in particular would make more sense as a diplomatic move and as a beefier alternative to denouncing, with more a far more tangible and immediate effect. It also allows diplomatic blocs in the late-game to better stand up against global pressure, which (IMO) makes for interesting gameplay!

 

[usadefcon1]

I think Civ III handled sanctions best with its Trade Embargo diplomatic agreement. You could propose a Trade Embargo against a third-party civilization to another leader, and if they agreed, both civilizations would cease all trade with the targeted civilization.

It was like asking: "Shall we declare war on…?" but without the war.

Only the civ that builds the UN Wonder gains the ability to propose global sanctions like we do in Civ V.

 

[azum4roll]

I think it's too easy to break a deal this way.

 

[Tonas1997]

I think Civ III handled sanctions best with its Trade Embargo diplomatic agreement. You could propose a Trade Embargo against a third-party civilization to another leader, and if they agreed, both civilizations would cease all trade with the targeted civilization.

It was like asking: "Shall we declare war on…?" but without the war.

Only the civ that builds the UN Wonder gains the ability to propose global sanctions like we do in Civ V.

Hmm, sanctions could also be a trade item akin to the "declare war on" option, which would achieve that.

I think it's too easy to break a deal this way.

True. I guess it would come down to the player to decide whether that's worth a significant diplo penalty - or worst case scenario, deals are brought to their conclusion but can't be renewed during active sanctions, whereas trade routes are immediately cancelled.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

Some time ago I tried to do that denouncing a Civ forbids their trade routes to be estalibshed to your cities, as a sort of a trade embargo, but for some reason the hook just didn't want to work for this case, if I remember correctly. I'll might make a second look however one day, just out of curiosity.

 

[Remito]

I think Civ III handled sanctions best with its Trade Embargo diplomatic agreement. You could propose a Trade Embargo against a third-party civilization to another leader, and if they agreed, both civilizations would cease all trade with the targeted civilization.

It was like asking: "Shall we declare war on…?" but without the war.

Only the civ that builds the UN Wonder gains the ability to propose global sanctions like we do in Civ V.

I think it would be a fantastic idea !

 

[usadefcon1]

I think it's too easy to break a deal this way.

Just like declaring war on a 3rd party you lock the deal for x number of turns.

 

[azum4roll]

Just like declaring war on a 3rd party you lock the deal for x number of turns.

Except you now do it without war.

It's also a free provoke button to let them declare war if you want.

 

[Tonas1997]

Except you now do it without war.

It's also a free provoke button to let them declare war if you want.

Wouldn't that make denunciation also a "free provoke button", though?

Besides, neither are really free; denouncing comes with diplomatic penalties, and sanctioning would incur in HEAVY diplomatic penalties - including almost certain retaliation - and close a lot of potential trading routes/opportunities. If a player deems the consequences worth it, then why not let them?

 

[azum4roll]

Denunciation has a global effect. It's a "take side" button.

Sanctioning is just 1v1, you won't risk the world piling on you.

 

[Tonas1997]

Denunciation has a global effect. It's a "take side" button.

Sanctioning is just 1v1, you won't risk the world piling on you.

Sanctions could have the same global diplomatic effects, though.

If A denounces B, who is allied with C, C gets pissed at A.

If A sanctions B, who is allied with C, C gets REALLY pissed at A.

So in essence a much beefier version of denouncing - for which you can pretty much expect retaliation - that also severely cripples diplomatic and economic ties between two civs.

 

[azum4roll]

Then what's the point of denunciation? It's now just a weaker sanction.

 

[usadefcon1]

Then what's the point of denunciation? It's now just a weaker sanction.

Trade embargos come with the added cost of not being able to trade with the targeted Civ.

 

[azum4roll]

Usually you don't want to anyway - they can declare war any time and break the trade routes and deals. And deals have lower profit when they hate you.

 

[Tonas1997]

Then what's the point of denunciation? It's now just a weaker sanction.

Denouncination will remain a viable tool in the spectrum of denouncing > sanctions > war. A "weaker sanction" is also less risky and easier to walk back from.

If you want to take sides for grandstanding (e g. improve relations with a mutual enemy) and would rather avoid more practical consequences, you denounce.

If you want to exert economic pressure on an opponent that has some trade relations with you (agreements/routes), and are willing to risk further escalation - but don't want to declare war right away - you sanction.

If you REALLY want to make your point understood, you declare war.

 

[notaspambot]

This would devalue sanctions way too much, in my opinion. The main value of sanctions at the moment is that they are universal; i.e. implemented for all players by force, including friendly ones. Without that aspect, sanctions would only be implemented upon enemies or hostile civs, i.e. civs you aren't going to do much trade or diplomacy with anyway, making it a largely trivial action.

 

[Tonas1997]

This would devalue sanctions way too much, in my opinion. The main value of sanctions at the moment is that they are universal; i.e. implemented for all players by force, including friendly ones. Without that aspect, sanctions would only be implemented upon enemies or hostile civs, i.e. civs you aren't going to do much trade or diplomacy with anyway, making it a largely trivial action.

That's true, but I'd argue that WC sanctions right now are way too powerful, as they can instantaneously break economic ties between two civs - no matter how friendly they are to eachother. We can think of a myriad ways to buff unilateral sanctions such as strong diplo penalties, preventing their trade routes from passing through your territory (which would also affect you on retaliation), and so on.

Besides, under the value argument denouncination is little more than a "hate me" button

 

[imperfectpeter]

100% agree that sanctions are far too potent and also don't really make sense. I definitely favour non-WC sanctions, but I did hear of an idea from somewhere else that would help if sanctions must remain a WC proposal- making them expire.

Essentially sanctions would still function the same way, but instead of having to vote to repeal them, in order for the sanctions to continue, each round of WC you would need to renew them. This would mean you'd need to sustain consistent diplomatic support in order to maintain the sanctions. Currently the reverse is true, which means that once you have sanctions applied it is incredibly difficult to remove them, especially considering the target can't make any deals.

 

[SerbianYugoThief]

Yes please. The global sanctions have always been way too severe as something that can only be undone by the will of those who imposed it, in my opinion, and I welcome any introduction of more diplomacy options.

This would devalue sanctions way too much, in my opinion. The main value of sanctions at the moment is that they are universal; i.e. implemented for all players by force, including friendly ones. Without that aspect, sanctions would only be implemented upon enemies or hostile civs, i.e. civs you aren't going to do much trade or diplomacy with anyway, making it a largely trivial action.

I think particularly if sanctions rendered your territory a no-go for trade route passage, they'd be a lot more meaningful. I do often run trade routes to civs who are guarded against me, as well, because sometimes there's simply no other option.

 

[azum4roll]

I think this is just a way to discard all disadvantages of a sanction proposal and only keep the good stuff. There's no downside of doing this on someone you hate.